RATLIFF v. STATE

PER CURIAM.

Walter Lee Ratliff appeals his conviction for burglary of a dwelling, arguing that the building in question, a newly built but unoccupied home, was not a dwelling for purposes of section 810.02 (3), Florida Statutes. See § 810.011 (2), Fla.Stat. We reject this argument and affirm the conviction based on the holding in Perkins v. State, 630 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), cause dismissed, reh'g granted, No. 86,248, ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. Dec. 20, 1995). As in Perkins, we certify to the Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:

DO THE 1982 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 810, FLORIDA STATUTES, SUPERSEDE THE COMMON-LAW DEFINITION OF A DWELLING, WHEREBY A STRUCTURE'S DESIGN OR SUITABILITY FOR HABITATION, RATHER THAN ACTUAL OCCUPANCY OR INTENT TO OCCUPY, IS CONTROLLING IN DETERMINING WHETHER A STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A DWELLING.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.